£ 440 
c °Py i 




LETTEE 



HON. WHITING GRISWOLD, 



IN' REPLY TO THE 



Speech of Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, 



Delivered at Lowell, May 15, IStiO, on the Proceedings of 
the Charleston Convention'. 



3 



N 



LETTER. 



HON. BENJAMIN F. BUTLER : 

Dear Sir : — I have read witli much care and deep in- 
terest, your speech delivered at Huntington Hall, Lowell, 
May 15, upon the proceedings of the late Charleston Con- 
vention. Occupying as you do, the position of leader and 
representative of the Democratic party of Massachusetts, 
having been our last democratic candidate for Governor, 
and being also a delegate to the Charleston Convention, 
and an active and efficient member of the Committee on 
Resolutions, much importance will of course be justly 
attached at home and abroad to any thing you may say or 
do, in the present crisis of our political affairs. 

My long and intimate acquaintance with you, my high 
appreciation of you as a lawyer, a statesman, and a man, 
leads me to distrust my own conclusions, when they con- 
flict with those deliberately formed by you. Although 
your speech bears the marks of preparation and care, and 
has, I know, received a wide circulation, I am unwilling 
to let the result at which you arrived pass as the voice 
and feeling of the democracy of the State, without a 
protest, however weak and humble the source from which 
it emanates. It has never, I think, been our misfortune 
to differ but once before on any question of magnitude 
and importance. As Senatorial delegates from Massa- 
chusetts to the Cincinnati Convention, one of us favored, 
the other opposed, the nomination of Mr. Buchanan. It 
is only necessary to say, that it was then as now, I trust, 
an honest difference, and that each was then, as now, gov- 
erned by an honest and conscientious desire to do his duty. 

Of that portion of your address which relates to your 



action in the Convention upon the subject of the Platform, 
I have nothing to say, except in approval. It is upon 
other points, and mainly growing out of considerations 
connected with the candidates to be nominated, that I 
take issue with you. But I trust I do it in no spirit of 
factious fault-finding, or carping distrust; but with a view 
to ascertain, if possible, and act upon, the best policy for 
our party and the country. 

Coming then, directly to what I deem objectionable in 
your address — you say that in your belief, the "difference" 
in the Convention, "was about men, and not principles." 
If this be so, why do you claim so much credit, why do 
you devote the larger portion of your speech in stating 
and justifying your record and action in the Convention, 
in defense of the Platform, the Principles of the party ? 
If there was no difference about principles, if in reality 
all was harmony here, if the South did not secede upon 
the matter of Platform, of Principles, then why the long- 
controversy in which you bore so honorable a part in 
the Committee, and in the Convention, relative to the 
Platform? Why the "reply," the "retort," the "re- 
turn," which you say you gave to the "taunt," the "gibe," 
and the "blow" from southern delegates? 

I fear you are mistaken here. With your acknowledged 
sagacity, acumen, and usual fairness, I fear you have 
fallen into a fatal error on this point. I give you more 
credit for your action upon the matter of the Platform, 
than you claim. I prefer to believe that your eloquent 
tongue, and acute intellect, were exerted in no ordinary 
cause ; that you was engaged in no child's play ; no ruse 
to deceive ; no mere ostensible pretext, to cover up the 
real object to be accomplished. I prefer to believe that 
you was standing up for the right, for principles, for a 
Platform which has stood the test of time ; and the se- 
verest scrutiny, which has carried our party through many 
a conflict and crisis; a Platform which was unjustly as- 
sailed in the house of its friends. And I am forced also 
to believe that a portion of the southern delegates seceded 
upon a real difference in opinion, and upon a determina- 
tion to incorporate a new plank into our party creed. 

As a general thing, I prefer to believe that men act 
from honest motives, and mean what they say. If the 
resolutions of Hon. Jefferson Davis, which have agitated 
the country, and passed the Senate ; if the slave code 
resolutions at Charleston; if all the objections to non- 
intervention by Congress, which come up just now from 



the South, is a mere pretext, a cover, a delusion, an un- 
necessary farce to blind the country ; if in fact, the whole 
difference which is leading to secession, disruption, and 
disunion, is simply about men, is simply whether this or 
that man shall be the nominee at Baltimore, without re- 
gard to the jwincijAcs which will shape his administration, 
then have I been too simple and confiding; then have I 
overrated the honor and sincerity of southern statesmen. 

Again you say — "The passage of this resolution, [the 
two-thirds rule] made the nomination of Judge Douglas 
simply impossible." But how impossible? You admit 
he received "upon one ballot a bare majority of the whole 
vote." [The official report shows that he received a ma- 
jority upon a series of ballots.] You allude to the anti- 
Douglas minorities which were stifled in New York, Ohio, 
Indiana, and Minnesota, by the unit rule; but you do not 
speak, except in general terms, of those States where 
Douglas minorities were stifled by the same rule. ISTor do 
you give sufficient facts to show which side gained or lost 
most by this rule. I agree to what you strongly intimate, 
that the rule itself is unjust and wrong. I was opposed 
to it in our Democratic State Convention which preceded 
the Cincinnati Convention, when this same unit rule was 
adopted on your motion. And you certainly will not soon 
forget that it was not till after a most severe and pro- 
tracted discussion of several days and nights, in our dele- 
gation at Cincinnati, that the rule was discarded, and my- 
self and those who acted with me, allowed to vote for Mr. 
Buchanan from the start ; and at first, against the majority 
of our delegation. And it was our few votes which gave 
Mr. Buchanan a bare majority on the twelfth, thirteenth, 
and fourteenth ballots, which closed the proceedings of 
the fourth day, and resulted in his nomination on the 
second ballot the next morning ; and that too on the very 
ground as stated by Mr. Preston of Kentucky ; that he had 
received a majority on a series of ballots. 

You say, " It was evident to all that more than one- 
third of the Convention was unalterably opposed to his 
[Douglas] nomination." But how could, you know that? 
It was undoubtedly your honest opinion. But you are not 
infallible ! for it was equally your honest opinion openly 
expressed the night before Mr. Buchanan was nominated, 
that he never could carry two-thirds of the Convention, yet 
when it was found that the majority of the Convention 
were in earnest and unyielding for Mr. Buchanan, Ten- 
nessee which had voted the last eight times for Mr. Douglas, 



6 

broke the opposing column ; and cast her twelve votes for 
Mr. Buchanan, which secured his immediate nomination. 
Had a few more men been as true to Mr. Douglas as some 
of us were to Mr. Buchanan ; especially had more of the 
delegates from Massachusetts, perhaps in feeling one of the 
strongest Douglas states in the Union ; how can you say 
that the South, that Tennessee herself would not have 
yielded now as they did then ? Nay, how do you know 
that if during the nearly twenty ballots in which Judge 
Douglas had 151 J votes, [lacking a half vote of a major- 
ity,] you had yourself cast that half vote for him ; instead 
of withdrawing your vote ; and, as I am informed you did ; 
at the very time when you found he was receiving a ma- 
jority, and was likely to be nominated, how do you 
know I say, that you yourself might not have been instru- 
mental in his nomination ? Can there be any doubt, that 
if the whole Massachusetts delegation had expressed the 
wishes of their constituents, had uttered the unmistakable 
voice of nine-tenths of her democracy, and cast the whole 
vote of the State for Mr. Douglas, thus securing him a clear 
majority on fifty-seven successive ballots; can there be 
any doubt I say, that he would have received the nomina- 
tion at Charleston ? I think not. 

If there can be any doubt that such would have been 
the result, then is there a conspiracy among the delegates, 
in violation of eveiy usage and principle of the party, and 
of democracy, as cruel and wicked as that of the more 
than forty men who bound themselves under a curse, that 
they would neither eat or drink, until they had slain Paul. 
And if such is the fact, some men will have a long ac- 
count to settle with their constituents ; some men will 
tremble at the "judgment to come " when the democracy 
shall review their conduct, worse than did the treacherous 
Felix under the reasonings of the eloquent apostle. 

You speak of " coming from a State where there is no 
hope of a democratic electoral vote." Is it not about time 
to dismiss this dirge and take a brighter view of Massa- 
chusetts politics ? We in the country, have long looked 
to you with hope and confidence, as one who would dis- 
countenance every influence calculated to " keep the party 
conveniently small," as one who would seize the first 
"golden opportunity," who would take the ebb tide, 
when setting so strongly towards popular favor, and lead 
us to success, to victory. "No hope !" Surely if the voice 
of the democracy of the State is to be stifled, if ideas and 
principles once coldly received, but now growing into 



favor even here are to be discarded, if the man of the time, 
a man who has never faltered in the cause of democracy, 
never swerved from the true principles of the party, a man 
who combines more of the elements of success, and power, 
of courage, political integrity, true statesmanship, and 
popular favor, than any man since Andrew Jackson, is to 
be assassinated by his professed friends, then you may 
well exclaim as you do, " no hope!" But had you clung 
to Douglas with the same tenacity that you did to his 
principles, and with the same success, in the present state 
of parties, and political feeling in Massachusetts, I should 
not despair of your election as governor, this very fall. 

I have examined with great care your reasons why 
Judge Douglas "ought not to be nominated," as well as 
the " reasons which render Douglas hopeless as a candi- 
date." I will allude to these reasons briefly : 

You say the South is " opposed to Judge Douglas even 
to a disruption of the party." I do not believe it. If 
you mean by the South, a self-constituted clique of men, 
seeking their private revenge ; if you mean by the South, 
the men who seceded from the Charleston Convention on 
account of the adoption of the Cincinnati Platform, and 
who upon mature reflection, shall insist upon maintaining 
that position ; if you mean that class of men who advocate 
the dissolution of the Union in the event of a certain con- 
tingency ; if you mean the men who deliberately discard 
to-day the doctrine of non-intervention which they pro- 
posed and enforced four years ago, you may be right. 
But I deny that one or ail these classes, represent the 
South. I believe that the great Union-loving, conserva- 
tive, national mass of the southern people remain true to 
the Cincinnati Platform, and that when the issue is made 
up, and they are called upon to decide between Douglas 
and Lincoln, between non-intervention and the Wilmot 
proviso, they would rally under the standard of Judge 
Douglas, as they have done for no man since the " hero of 
Xew Orleans." " His nomination would be no disrup- 
tion of the party, it would only be sloughing oft' a few hot- 
headed, hair-brained, political excresences, who have been 
only a curse to the party for years. 

But, you say, Douglas ought not to be nominated 
"with every democratic free state voting against him." 
Is not Illinois a " democratic free state"? Yet she did 
not vote against him. Is it not the most reliable of all the 
Democratic States north or south ? Is it not the star that 
never sets? But why is it that we have, as von justly 



8 

intimate so few northern states reliable for the Democracy ? 
Do you believe it necessary to so administer this govern- 
ment, that no northern state can be rallied to its support? 
If I thought so, I should almost despair of the Union. Was 
it so under the administrations of Jefferson, Madison, Mon- 
roe, Jackson and Polk ? And do you now propose to aban- 
don the only man, who can, with any degree of certainty, 
restore the northern democratic column to its ancient line, 
and that too without violating an iota of our platform, or 
encroaching aTittle upon the constitutional rights of the 
South ? What policy could be adopted so short-sighted, so 
suicidal to the whole country, to the Union itself? 

You admit that Judge Douglas is the " first choice " of 
the people of your district : and you proceed to pay him a 
most true, eloquent, and deserved tribute ; for which I 
thank you ; as I doubt not do the democracy of the whole 
state. But by what twist of logic ; by what mode of rea- 
soning, you in the same breath deduce, from his "ability, 
untiring energy, parliamentary, and executive capacity" 
his unfitness for this nomination ; will puzzle your readers 
to decipher. You say " it is not that we love Caesar less, 
but Rome more." But how in this instance can you better 
show your love of Rome, than by advancing the interests 
of Caesar ? By your own showing no man is a better rep- 
resentative of the true idea of American Democracy than 
Mr. Douglas ; and you may be sure that " Rome will howl," 
if this great and patriotic exponent of her principles is dis- 
owned at Baltimore. 

You say you " found Judge Douglas' nomination an im- 
possibility without a disruption of the party, and throwing 
away all chance of success." The record is against you : 
the " disruption " took place before the balloting com- 
menced ; and upon a difference as to the platform ; not as 
to the candidate. If you could persist in adhering to the 
Cincinnati Platform, even to a" disruption of the party," 
and after it took place, could you not after the breach was 
made, be at least consistent, and put upon that platform, 
its best and truest exponent ? Why was it so criminal to 
adhere to Douglas for fear his name might make a disrup- 
tion ; when you insisted upon the platform, which you knew 
would, and did produce disruption ? I cannot understand this 
kind of logic. Is there any "cat under the meal?" Is not 
the very object of rejecting Douglas, to get a candidate, so 
silent and non-committal upon the question of the day, that 
he may be elected ; and then show his colors, in defiance 
of all platforms of non-intervention ? This if any thing, 



9 

in my opinion, would be " throwing away all chance of 
success." The rejection of Douglas under the circum- 
stances, would I tear, with all candid men, be construed as 
a rejection of his doctrine of non-intervention ; and where 
is the northern state which could be caught by the shallow 
pretence of a different construction ? 

You say you " found a very large majority of the Dem- 
ocratic States, unalterably opposed to him." [Douglas.] 
What do you mean by democratic States ? States in fa- 
vor of a slave code ; States which connive at secession, 
disruption, and in a certain event, disunion' itself; States 
which discard the well settled principles of the party ? If 
so, then are you correct ; if any such States can be found, 
which I very much doubt, But if Douglas were to be 
nominated, 'would not Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, 
Ie W York, and the other Northern States, which would 
rush to his standard, with majorities unknown before, be 
democratic States ? Let us understand each other, and 
the terms we use. Must we relinquish our ndelity^ to 
principle, be forced to support men and measures which 
will render us powerless throughout the JSorth ; and then 
be taunted because we can show no Northern Democratic 
States ? For one I enter my protest in advance against 
this damnable policy. 

You say you "found him [Douglas] in a bitter feud with 
a democratic administration." This is a mistake. Judge 
Douglas is in no feud with a democratic administration. 
He has pursued one course, and that straight forward. 
He has not turned aside to attack or malign the adminis- 
tration, or any one else. In defence of our platform and 
principles, he has defied all opposition, come from what- 
ever source it might ; but he is engaged in no quarrels, 
no feuds. In his late masterly and unanswerable speech 
in the Senate, he expressly disclaimed all animosity to 
those who differed from him ; nay, more, he tendered to 
our party Mr. Buchanan's letter of acceptance, or Vice 
President Brecken ridge's address at Lexington, accepting 
the nomination, as a "Platform, without the dotting of an 
i, or the crossing of a t. Does this look like being en- 
gaged in "a bitter feud with a democratic administra- 
tion?" 

You "found also that Judge Douglas was in opposition 
to almost the entire democratic majority of the Senate of 
the United States," and " opposed by a large majority of 
the democratic members of the House of Representa- 
tives." But whence does that opposition spring '( Can it 
2 



10 

not all be traced to his opposition to any departure from 
the platform of the part}' ; to the introduction into our 
party creed of the new plank, the slave code so-called? Is 
it not based upon his refusal to abandon the long estab- 
lished landmarks of the party ? Is it not owing to his ad- 
hesion to principle ; his unfaltering advocacy of the Cin- 
cinnati Platform; his refusal to change front on a question 
vital to the integrity and honor of our party, to the success 
of our cause, and the stability of the Union itself ? Can 
you point to any other even alleged fault in his views and 
position? Is not this the sum of his guilt? You are an 
eminent criminal lawyer ; I would like to see you under- 
take to draw up and put on record the political crimes of 
Stephen A. Douglas. Your allegations would rest in in- 
vention alone, and not in facts. How then can these 
groundless charges against him induce you to oppose his 
nomination ? You, who achieved such honorable distinc- 
tion at Charleston in defence of the same principles ; and 
like Judge Douglas in the very teeth of the slave code 
Southern opposition? Is it as you say, "no matter who is 
right or who is wrong?" Is this the code of political 
morals to which you invite the democracy of Massachu- 
setts? Is this the "defence" you endeavored to make 
when " the democracy of the old Bay State" was misrep- 
resented ? Did it occur to you, that almost every one of 
the objections you bring against the nomination of Judge 
Douglas, applies with equal force against your own patri- 
otic and honorable effort at Charleston in defence of the 
Cincinnati Platform ? Did you not see that you yourself 
was thus, if any body, in "a bitter feud with a democratic 
administration ;" that you was "in opposition to the al- 
most entire democratic majority of the Senate," and a 
very large majority of what you allege to be "democratic 
States ?" and that you insisted upon your platform even 
to "a disruption of the party ?" Now I believe you have 
too much honor to allow another to fall under an imputa- 
tion, which you would not permit to rest upon yourself 
under like circumstances. 

Lastly, "and more than all," you "found that the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives was openly quoted as 
saying, that the influential paper controlled by him, would 
either support Douglas or Seward, thus making himself 
apparently an unpleasant connecting link between them." 
Col. Forney's Press is among my list of papers, and I have 
read it with some care, and whatever he may be " quoted 
as saying," I have seen no such determination expressed 



u 

in his paper. But suppose it were so, how many " influen- 
tial papers" and influential men, who are willing to sup- 
port Douglas and the Cincinnati Platform, can you drive 
from our ranks by a slave code, or a candidate who will 
prove an equivalent, and carry the election? You seem 
to forget that the election may, and probably will turn 
upon a few nicely balanced ISTorthern States, where a 
breach of good faith, a departure from established usage 
and principle, an unpardonable onslaught upon a man 
who is to-day the unquestioned choice for President, of 
the great mass of the American Democracy, will prove 
fatal to our cause. But while you are shocked at this 
" unpleasant connecting link" between Douglas and Sew- 
ard, you have no word of censure for our Southern breth- 
ren, who talk disunion by the month, and some of whom 
openly declare, that they would rather see Lincoln than 
Douglas elected President. 

In conclusion you say you voted " for Jefferson Davis 
of Mississippi." Among the chief reasons fortius vote was 
the fact that he assisted Massachusetts in securing her 
"just dues," which she ought to have had and which Mr. 
Davis if within his power, ought to have obtained for her 
years before. Xow I have nothing to say against Mr. 
Davis. Massachusetts thanks him for his exertions in 
doing tardy justice to our State. Mr. Davis is a man of 
courage, a statesman of the extreme Southern sectional 
school, honest I doubt not, and patriotic in his views. 
But it is a curious fact, that, after the long struggle, so 
honorable to you, in favor of non-intervention, you should 
select as a candidate the only prominent statesman, almost 
in the country, who never indorsed the Cincinnati Plat- 
form, who entered his protest in the outset, against the 
great doctrine of popular sovereignty in the territories. 
You may be able to reconcile/his course of action in your 
own mind. I cannot do it myself. 

Well do you inquire, " what is to be done at Baltimore ':" 
You argue that because Mr. Van Buren was set aside in 
1844, for Mr. Polk, after having received a majority of the 
convention on one ballot, Douglas can be now. But there 
is no parallel between the two cases, and there will be 
none between the results. Mr. Van Buren had been 
President one term, and had received the nomination 
again, and been defeated by the people. But Douglas has 
never been nominated, much less defeated. But the great 
and fatal objection to Mr. Van Buren in 1844, and the 
cause of his defeat in the convention, was his previous 



12 

committal in writing against the annexation of Texas, that 
being the great question upon which both the nomination 
and ejection turned, just as non-intervention is the great 
question upon which the nomination and election will 
now turn. The annexation of Texas was the party creed, 
and watchword, the main plank in the Platform of 1844. 
Popular sovereignty in the territories, non-intervention by 
Congress, was in 1856, and is now the main plank, the 
party watchword, which has and will rally the conserva- 
tive, union-loving masses of the American democracy. 
The reason which rendered Mr. Van Buren unavailable in 
1844, is the very reason why Mr. Douglas is the most 
available candidate in 1860. Could Polk have been elected 
if he had been opposed to the annexation of Texas, or 
even non-committal on the subject? Your own good 
judgment will answer the question. So no man can^now 
be elected, who is either openly against the doctrine of 
popular sovereignty, or who is suspected of being unrelia- 
ble on the subject. 

Where, to-day, are the prominent democratic names, 
which during the last few months have been mentioned 
in connection with the Presidency ? Buchanan, Breck- 
enridge, Guthrie, Hunter, Wise, Lane, Davis, Cobb, 
Toucy and others, either of which but for their supposed 
complicity with this question, would rally the masses, 
would strike a chord which would vibrate throughout the 
Union. But one after another has been dropped, till all 
have disappeared. And why is this ? Because everybody 
knows that no northern state can be carried against this 
long established, well-settled and never to be abandoned 
democratic principle. And what is the use of commenc- 
ing a canvass with the absolute certainty that every 
northern State will be arrayed against us ? And espec- 
ially with the fact before us that our opponents have nom- 
inated an honest, able and popular man. 

Can then Mr. Douglas he overslaughed at Baltimore 
and the party succeed? As you have frankly stated 
your opinion, I will venture mine. I give it as my delib- 
erate opinion, formed upon much reflection, and a careful 
survey of the whole field, that he cannot, should the party 
be rash enough to attempt it. A very few months will test 
the comparative soundness of our conclusions. I appre- 
hend it is no matter who else is nominated, no matter 
what professions he may make, or what assurances he 
may give, the country will understand, the people, quick 
to discern, will see, that in the rejection of Mr. Douglas, 



13 

popular sovereignty, non-intervention, is discarded. They 
will see and believe that the great principle to which an 
anxious republic were looking to save the country, from 
the " irrepressible conflict," now going on, between the 
extremes of the North and South ; a conflict which is 
driving us every hour nearer to the black and bottomless 
gulf of disunion, is all at once discarded and abandoned 
by its authors. The shock will be instantaneous and 
tremendous. It will belike throwing overboard the pilot, 
and with him the compass and chart while sailing among 
rocks on a lee shore. 

]STo : the whole trouble lies within a narrow compass ; 
and the sooner we face the danger, the sooner we grapple 
with the real difficulty, the better. It must be done, or 
inevitable disgrace and defeat awaits the party. It is no 
pleasant task for me to find fault with a democratic ad- 
ministration, especially one which I bore a humble part in 
establishing. But those who know the part I took at Cin- 
cinnati in securing Mr. Buchanan's nomination, will agree 
that I have a right, if any body, to speak of his administra- 
tion. But without saying a word about other points in 
the course and policy of Mr. Buchanan ; he has made one 
mistake ; a mistake fatal to him, fatal to this part of 
his administration, fatal to all who uphold and justify 
the act. It is not a blunder, it is a crime. I refer 
to the Lecompton policy of the administration. No man, 
can be elected President who took any part in this scheme, 
or who is supposed directly or indirectly to connive at or 
uphold it. It is useless to argue the question, to enumer- 
ate facts ; it is understood, and settled in the public mind, 
North, South, East and West. It is this departure from the 
Cincinnati Platform ; this departure from the Democratic 
National Platforms, of '48, '52, '56, and from the resolu- 
tions, letters and speeches of nearly all the democratic 
states, and statesmen in the country, which has made all 
this trouble and division. Mr. Douglas was one of the very 
few prominent democratic statesmen, sagacious enough to 
see, and honest and courageous enough to act, up to the 
crisis. 

Had Mr. Buchanan followed what I believe to have been 
the dictates of his own better judgment ; had he adhered to 
the platform which he accepted as the chart of his admin- 
istration ; had he held fast to the doctrine as stated in his 
letter of acceptance, and inaugural address ; had he dis- 
owned and denounced the Lecompton constitution, as the 
vile progeny of a bastard origin, instead of claiming it as 



14 

the legitimate offspring of the Cincinnati Platform ; and 
kicked it in disgrace from the White House, as a thing 
which Kansas hated, which the North abhorred, and the 
South despised ; he would have been renominated by ac- 
clamation, and elected by a majority such as Jackson never 
saw in his most popular triumphs. It is now too late for 
him, but not for the party. One chance remains, and that 
is a most glorious chance ; a " golden opportunity," as it 
would settle all party controversy for national supremacy 
for years to come. What are all the emoluments of office, 
compared with the triumph of principle ? What are all 
the custom houses, and petty post offices, which for a con- 
sideration are vieing with each other in unprincipled rivalry, 
to defeat the man whose generous impulses led him to 
withdraw in 1856, in favor of Mr. Buchanan ? Should 
Douglas be nominated atBaltimore, the enthusiasm, the up- 
rising of the people, the popular furor which would spring 
up all over the country in his behalf, would surpass any 
thing in the previous history of our country, just in pro- 
portion as power and pelf, as detraction and slander have 
been employed to destroy his reputation, would be the 
popular enthusiasm and verdict in his favor. Corrupt 
cliques would disband, disunion would hide its ghastly 
form, and all sectional controversy would gradually cease ; 
men of extreme views both North and South would disap- 
pear from public life, while their places would be filled 
by more moderate, conservative, sound national men. It 
is the politicians who are now at work ; the unpurchased 
masses will soon speak; and if to ratify the nomination of 
Douglas, they will .come in legions, as 

" The waves come, when navies are stranded ; 
As the leaves come, when forests are rended." 

One word to the democracy of the South, before I close. 
You have reached a crisis in the history of the party, and 
of the Union. Your action at Baltimore will be fraught 
with momentous results for good or evil. If you abandon 
the doctrine of popular sovereignty ; or what will I fear 
prove equivalent to it ; if you abandon and discard Mr. 
Douglas, its truest and ablest exponent ; it will be a fatal 
step to you. The democracy of the North have been sub- 
jected to the odium consequent in this section upon the 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise line ; have borne the 
denunciations of the pulpit and the press ; have been driven 
into hopeless minorities all over the North ; have fallen one 
after another in defence of the constitutional rig-hts of the 



15 

South, until their bleaching bones whiten every state and 
district north of Mason and Dixon's line. And now just 
as the principle of self-government, just as popular sov- 
ereignty, the substitute for an arbitrary line, is becoming 
popular at the North, just as the country begins to see that 
this doctrine is likely to prove the only safe, and constitu- 
tional solution of the slavery question — if this plank is to 
be taken from under our feet, and we are to be left with- 
out any safe and solid foundation on which to stand ; the 
time will come, and that soon, when you will want, nay 
implore in vainy the aid of your northern allies. That aid 
cannot be secured upon dishonorable terms. We have 
taken our position, and cannot recede from it without dis- 
grace, dishonor, and defeat. You can come to us, with- 
out any sacrifice on your part, of principle, of honor, or 
self-respect. 

If the South after all, are not sincere in the solemnly 
expressed and reiterated statement of their desire to ban- 
ish forever the discussion of the subject of slavery from 
the Halls of Congress ; if they are determined to renew 
and perpetuate the agitation of this inflamable subject; 
if instead of leaving the whole matter where the Cincin- 
nati Platform and the Constitution leave it, to the people 
of the states and territories ; if you are determined to ar- 
ray congressional protection against the Wilmot proviso, 
and to adapt yourselves 1* the other extreme of the same 
doctrine which you denounce in northern republicans; 
if by pressing the slave code, you make the democratic a 
mere sectional party, make it subject to the same ob- 
jection which you denounce in our political opponents; if 
you threaten a dissolution of the Union in the event of 
the election of a republican president, and then insist 
upon the course best calculated to produce that contingency, 
it will take no prophet's ken to foresee the danger that 
amrfcte hundreds of thousands of voters now willing to abide 
the Cincinnati Platform, and stand upon the doctrine of 
non-intervention by Congress, driven from this safe, sound, 
and constitutional plank, ~$fe& would, if forced to adopt the 
doctrine of Congressional intervention, following their 
natural instincts for freedom, take the side of liberty 
■against slavery, and do all in their power to prevent by 
Congressional laws all farther extension of an institu- 
tion which the fathers of the Republic without distinction 
of party, were forced to admit was a political, moral, and 
social evil. Will you drive the North, will you drive 
the country to this alternative ? Better a thousand fold 



16 

for you, for us, for the peace of the country, and the sta- 
bility of the Union, to leave the whole subject where the 
Constitution, the Cincinnati Platform, and a sound na- 
tional policy leave it, to the laws of God, of nature, of cli- 
mate, of soil, to the local, civil laws of each State and Terri- 
tory, and to this result it must come at last. In defiance of 
senatorial resolutions, or congressional and cabinet cau- 
cuses, of slave codes and Wilmot provisos, the bold, hardy 
and enterprising pioneers who people the new territories, 
will settle the question for themselves, and shape their 
own domestic institutions, independent of congressional 
intervention, and foreign dictation, and the more this 
theory is discussed, the more popular it will become, be- 
cause it is founded in the inalienable rights of man. The 
principle of self-government is as old as human liberty. 
It has been baptized in blood, and nurtured by uncounted 
sacrifice of toil, of treasure, and of life, the world over. 

Under the flag of non-intervention, with Douglas as its 
standard-bearer, we can achieve a victory which will re-in- 
force and stengthen the democratic party, effectually quell 
the spirit of disunion, and kindle all over the country new 
hopes in the stability and perpetuity of the Union. But 
discard the doctrine of non-intervention, or nominate a 
man satisfactory to the slave code secessionists, and you 
will kindle anew and in earnest the "irrepressible con- 
flict," and if, (which God forbid) it should ever end in 
civil war, anarchy and disunion, you will not fail to re- 
membeiv that it was your own short-sighted folly, which 
brought the disaster upon you and us. 

And now, my dear sir, let me say in conclusion, that 
while I do not flatter myself that the suggestions which 
I have made, will carry with them much personal weight 
and importance; allow me to hope that the suggestions 
themselves, may receive your serious consideration, and 
have some influence in determining your course at Balti- 
more, which I trust will be such as to reflect the wishes 
of your constituents, of the Democracy of the State, and 
the wishes of the great mass- of the Democracy of the 
Union, And believe me as ever 

Verv sincerely your friend, 

W. GRISWOLD. 

Greenfield, June 8, 1860. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
011 "895 868 8 » 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 895 868 8 f 



peonulifg* 
pH8.5 



